Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Newborn babies: not persons, and not fully human – P. Z. Myers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Please respond by 12:01 a.m. on Friday, 21 January 2011 (GMT)

P. Z. Myers is one of the 25 most influential living atheists. He is also on record as saying that he doesn’t believe that newborn babies are fully human, and he makes it clear that he doesn’t regard them as persons, either. Almost no-one noticed when P. Z. Myers made these utterances, because they were made in a comment on one of his recent posts. (See here for P.Z. Myers’ post, here for one reader’s comment and here for P. Z. Myers’ reply, in which he makes his own views plain.) So, what exactly did P. Z. say? In response to a reader who claimed that there is one very easily defined line between personhood and non-personhood – namely, birth – P. Z. Myers replied:

Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human.

I’ve had a few. They weren’t.

Let me state at the outset that I have no doubt that P. Z. Myers is a good father; but that is not the issue here. His views on newborn babies are the issue.

For the benefit of readers, here is a list of the 25 most influential living atheists:

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Peter Singer, Steven Weinberg, Paul Kurtz, Lawrence Krauss, Edward O. Wilson, P. Z. Myers, James Randi, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Peter Atkins, John Brockman, Philip Pullman, Barbara Forrest, David Sloan Wilson, Ray Kurzweil, William B. (“Will”) Provine, Kai Nielsen, Susan Blackmore and Richard Carrier.

The purpose of my post today is to ask each of the 25 most influential living atheists five simple questions:

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes/No (please see Question 1 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 2 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 3 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Yes/No (please see Questions 1, 4, 5 and 6 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 7 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

I’m asking these questions, because I think the world has a right to know how the 25 most influential living atheists view newborn babies. The moral status of newborn babies is an ethical issue of vital importance, and I’d like to know what the world’s leading atheists think about this subject. Because I’m a generous person, I’m giving them four days to answer my five simple questions. The countdown ends at 12:01 a.m. (one minute past midnight) on Friday, 21 January, 2011, Greenwich Mean Time (UTC). I think that’s quite enough time for the word to get around, and for people to respond.

And in case some of these atheists object that they’re too busy to respond, let me state that I will happily accept, in good faith, responses written on their behalf by friends, acquaintances, personal assistants or people who have read their books and can quote relevant passages, complete with publication details and page numbers. If someone responding on behalf of an influential atheist wishes to preserve his/her anonymity, he/she is free to use a pseudonym. Please note, however, that I will not be imputing views to influential atheists on the basis of anonymous responses. That would be irresponsible.

To respond to my five questions, all you need to do is write a brief comment at the end of this post – for example:
(a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No.
Note: If you are replying on behalf of an influential atheist, please list his/her name, your name (if you are willing to give it) and your connection with the atheist in question.

Here are my answers to some questions which I anticipate that people will ask about my quiz:

Question 1. How do you define “fully human,” “person,” “right to life” and “wrong”? I don’t. We’re all grown-ups here. I’m quite happy to let you use your own definitions.

Question 2. What if I believe that a newborn baby is neither clearly a person nor clearly a non-person, but somewhere in between? In that case, please answer “Gray” to question (b) above.

Question 3. What if I believe that talk of “rights” is meaningless nonsense, for babies and adults alike? In that case, please answer “No, and I don’t believe adults do either” to question (c) above.

Question 4. What if I believe that our duties towards babies and adults alike are defined by the society we happen to live in? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. Obviously if you believe that, then you believe that people living in a society which tolerates infanticide don’t have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them.

Question 5. What if I believe that we have a duty to refrain from killing newborn babies, not because we have a duty towards the babies as such, but because it would cause great anguish to their parents if they were killed? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. I’m asking you whether you believe we have a duty towards the babies, to refrain from killing them. I’m not asking about duties towards their parents.

Question 6. What if I believe that we normally have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them, but that it may be OK in exceptional circumstances – e.g. if the baby is suffering excruciating pain, or is very severely deformed? In that case, please answer “Yes (qualified)” to question (d) above.

Question 7. What if I believe that killing a newborn baby is a terrible, terrible thing, but that killing an adult is even worse? In that case, please answer “No” to question (e) above.

Question 8. Don’t you know that there is very little myelin in a newborn baby’s brain? Don’t you know that a newborn baby lacks an autobiographical memory, a concept of self and a theory of mind? Sure I do. You’re not telling me anything new; I didn’t come down in the last shower. All I want is an answer to the five questions I listed above, from the 25 most influential living atheists.

Question 9. What is the relevance of all this to Intelligent Design? Simple. Many of these influential atheists are on the record as saying that we can go on behaving ethically, even if there is no Designer of life and the cosmos. Fine. Here’s a splendid test case: the moral status of newborn babies, and our obligations towards them. I’d like to see how they answer my questionnaire, and I can assure these atheists that a lot of people will be watching.

Question 10. What if I refuse to answer your questionnaire? Fine. If you do not respond, and if no-one responds on your behalf, I shall assume by default that your responses are: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. Why? Because that’s about the most consistent set of responses that I can conceive of an atheist making, if he/she were also a materialist. Please note that I said “assume.” I did not say that I would impute those views to influential atheists who choose not to respond. There’s a very big difference.

Question 11. Are you seriously suggesting that a newborn baby has the same rights as an adult? What about the right to drive or vote? Reply: in this questionnaire, you are being asked about one right only: the right to life. The question I’m asking is: do you believe that a newborn human baby has a right to life or not? It is perfectly obvious that newborn babies don’t have the right to drive, which isn’t a natural human right in any case.

Question 12. Are you implying that people who don’t believe newborn babies are persons support infanticide? No. Let me be quite clear about that. I simply want to know what the world’s most influential atheists think about the moral status of newborn babies.

Finally, let me remind readers that this post is about newborn babies. It is not about the morality of abortion, or about the moral status of an embryo or fetus. I would like to ask readers to keep their comments to the point.

UPDATE: THREE of the 25 most influential living atheists (Professor Peter Atkins, Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Michael Shermer) have already responded to my quiz (see comments 27, 29 and 33 below, respectively). I would like to thank them all for their prompt and courteous responses. ONE atheist (James Randi) has refused to respond (see comment 28 below). At least he answered my email, so I’ll give him credit for that.

I have also added the responses that I believe Professor Peter Singer and Professor Steven Pinker would give, on the basis of their published writings, from which I quote (see comments 64 and 65 below).

Comments
Roxolan, so you don't take the Big Bang (absolute beginning of the universe) seriously? or is it just cosmological argument that stems from the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang that you don't take seriously?bornagain77
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Jacky, first you are operating under,, The Myth of the Unwanted Child http://www.urbanfaith.com/2011/10/the-myth-of-the-unwanted-child.html/ Second there are more parents seeking adoption in America than there are babies to adopt:bornagain77
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
So you save the baby. Then what? Do you give that baby to the state and say, sorry not my problem, you take it. I think the question that is more relevant is how we support that infant after birth as a society. For those who believe no woman should abort, maybe they should be looking at how they are going to care of that child. It's easy to say, you have no right to kill. If all infants have a right to live out their potential, who is making sure of that?Jacky
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
@bornagain77 #56: As far as I know, what existed at the precise moment of the Big Bang, let alone before it (assuming this even makes sense) is currently unknown. I congratulate you on providing so many sources, but it's far above the amount of work I'm willing to put into a discussion with a stranger at the bottom of a blog. And I can't take somebody who uses the cosmological argument seriously. @Joseph #65: I'm confused, I don't understand what context you could possibly want. And I did not provide a realistic scenario because I wanted to keep the dilemma simple and unavoidable. When one does otherwise, some readers look for loopholes to provide an alternative solution more to their liking, thus avoiding the question. @Clive Hayden #70: I was trying to understand vjtorley's reasoning better. I wanted to know if only life expectancy mattered or if there was some other factor.Roxolan
January 25, 2011
January
01
Jan
25
25
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
vjtorley @ 79: you basically confirm that a) and e) are the only questions that can be reasonably answered from Pinker's article. The fair treatment for b, c, & d would be to say: we don't really know how Pinker would answer them.molch
January 23, 2011
January
01
Jan
23
23
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
#80 vj I look forward to it - but please keep it concise.markf
January 22, 2011
January
01
Jan
22
22
2011
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
markf (#78) You ask, "What's the point of all this?" I'll be writing a follow-up post in the next day or so. Stay tuned!vjtorley
January 22, 2011
January
01
Jan
22
22
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
molch (#72) Thank you for your comments. Professor Pinker does indeed write that "killing a baby is an immoral act." However, it certainly does not follow from this statement that he believes that a newborn baby is a person with a right not to be killed. He might simply think that killing a baby wrongs the baby's parents, for instance, and that it is immoral for that reason. In his essay, Pinker rhetorically asks, "What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed?" Earlier on in the essay, he writes: "The leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers forces us to think the unthinkable and ask if we, like many societies and like the mothers themselves, are not completely sure whether a neonate is a full person." At the very least, he's playing with fire here, by asking these questions and not coming down firmly on the side of those who say that a newborn baby is a person. Pinker goes on to say that "It seems obvious that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life," but then adds that "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other." Hmmm. Doesn't sound promising. He then adduces the opinion of moral philosophers: "the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do." Now, if at this point, Professor Pinker disagreed with these philosophers, he should have come out and said so. But he didn't. In the next paragraph, he went on:
Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Michael Tooley has gone so far as to say that neonaticide ought to be permitted during an interval after birth. Most philosophers (to say nothing of nonphilosophers) recoil from that last step...
All we can conclude from the foregoing is that Professor Pinker doesn't think that killing newborn babies should be made legal. On that point, he differs from the philosopher Michael Tooley. Pinker doesn't say that he regards neonaticide as murder, however. Rather, he suggests the reverse when he goes on to write: "the very fact that there can be a debate about the personhood of neonates, but no debate about the personhood of older children, makes it clearer why we feel more sympathy for an Amy Grossberg than for a Susan Smith." I hope that clarifies why I concluded that Pinker would have answered the quiz as follows: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. You, on the other hand, think he would have answered: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. (e) No. I'm glad we both agree that Pinker's answer to (e) would be "No." Evidently, Pinker does not believe that killing a newborn baby is as bad as killing an adult.vjtorley
January 22, 2011
January
01
Jan
22
22
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
vj What's the point of all this? It was mildly interesting to know the answers of some of these people (but as they interpret terms such as "person", "fully human" and "right" differently it is limited). But what is the value of your estimate of what they would have answered?markf
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
This on PZ today from James Taranto: "Myers seems to think symbolic speech from his political foes is a worse offense than the actual killing of babies. His lack of perspective is so gross that it has led him to outright depravity." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754304576095980746138462.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinionallanius
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Christopher Hitchens' views Judging from his recent remarks (see below), I believe that Christopher Hitchens' answer to my quiz would be: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. (e) Yes. Christopher Hitchens openly uses the term "unborn child," and has strong pro-life sympathies, as the following recordings show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8wwt4yKkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI&feature=relatedvjtorley
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Professor Richard Dawkins' views Judging from what he wrote in his book, The God Delusion in 2006, I believe that Richard Dawkins' answer to my quiz would be: (a) Yes. (b) "Person" is a meaningless term. (c) Yes - that is, the law should recognize newborn babies as having a right to life; however, they don't possess such a right by nature. (d) Yes - as for (c). (e) No. The following quotes are taken from Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006).
Human embryos are examples of human life. ... A consequentialist or utilitarian is likely to approach the abortion question in a very different way, by trying to weigh up suffering. Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.) Does the pregnant woman, or her family, suffer if she does not have an abortion? Very possibly so; and, in any case, given that the embryo lacks a nervous system, shouldn't the mother's well-developed nervous system have the choice? This is not to deny that a consequentialist might have grounds to oppose abortion. 'Slippery slope' arguments can be framed by consequentialists (though I wouldn't in this case). Maybe embryos don't suffer, but a culture that tolerates the taking of human life risks going too far: where will it all end? In infanticide? The moment of birth provides a natural Rubicon for defining rules, and one could argue that it is hard to find another one earlier in embryonic development. Slippery slope arguments could therefore lead us to give the moment of birth more significance than utilitarianism, narrowly interpreted, would prefer. (p. 293) (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Note that for Dawkins, the immorality of killing an individual is tied to the degree of suffering it is capable of. By that logic, it must follow that killing a newborn baby, whose nervous system is still not completely developed, is not as bad as killing an adult. I interpret Dawkins' later remarks on the slippery slope and on birth as a natural Rubicon as suggesting that he thinks it would be prudent for the law to treat babies as having a right to life from babies, to avoid far worse consequences that would result if they weren't recognized as having rights.
Early embryos that have no nervous system most certainly do not suffer. And if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer - though all suffering is deplorable - it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows of sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut. Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn't affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, 'When does the developing embryo become a person - a human being?' (p. 297) (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Note Dawkins' comparison of human embryos with those of cows and sheep, which suggests that he wouldn't regard a newborn human baby as any more special than a baby calf or lamb. Dawkins also rejects the term "person" as a hindrance to ethical reasoning.
The evolutionary point is very simple. The humanness of an embryo's cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status. It cannot, because of our evolutionary continuity with chimpanzees and, more distantly, with every species on the planet. (p. 300) (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
Once again, Dawkins denies a privileged status for human beings. A trenchant critique of Dawkins' pro-choice position can be found at http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-abortion-tadpoles-rape-cows-murder-and-sheep .vjtorley
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Professor Daniel Dennett's views Judging from what he wrote back in 1976, I believe that Daniel Dennett's answer to my quiz would be: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. Daniel Dennett, "Conditions of Personhood," in The Identities of Persons, ed. Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 175-196. Also in: Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology (Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, 1976/ 1978), pp. 267-85. Also in What Is a Person? edited by Michael F. Goodman, Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press, 1988, p. 145-167. In his article, "Conditions of Personhood," Professor Daniel Dennett identifies no less than six different conceptions of personhood in the philosophical tradition, each laying down a necessary condition of an individual A's being a person: A is a person only if: i. A is a rational being. ii. A is a being to which intentional states of consciousness can be attributed. iii. Others regard or can regard A as a being to which intentional states of consciousness can be attributed. (Conditions i, ii and iii are mutually inter-dependent.) iv. A is capable of reciprocating: that is, A is capable of regarding others as beings to which states of consciousness can be attributed. v. A is capable of verbal communication. vi. A is self-conscious, or capable of regarding him/her/itself as a subject of states of consciousness. (Conditions iv, v and vi successively build on the mutually inter-dependent nexus of conditions, i to iii.) In Dennett's analysis, personhood initially derives from three mutually interdependent characteristics: (i) being rational, (ii) being intentional and (iii) being perceived as rational and intentional. Once a being is acknowledged to have these three characteristics, personhood further requires that the being (iv) reciprocate by perceiving others as rational and intentional; additionally, the being must be (v) capable of verbal communication and finally, (vi) capable of self-consciousness. These last three characteristics are hierarchically dependent, building upon the first three. To view most of Dennett's essay online, see http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/B-PERSON.html . For a very short summary of the essay, see http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/B-PERSON.html . See also http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/mitchell01.htm . In any case, since a newborn baby does not exercise rationality, it is quite clear that Dennett would not regard it as a person. If Dennett does not regard a newborn baby as a person, it is difficult to see how he could regard a newborn baby as having a right to life, or as someone towards whom we could have duties. And it would be puzzling indeed if Dennett regarded the killing of a non-person as morally equivalent to the killing of a person.vjtorley
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Nameless Cynic: Thank you for your post. Your assertion that according to the Bible, life starts at the first breath, is mistaken. I refer you to the following link: http://www.prolifeamerica.com/Bible_Study_Links.cfmvjtorley
January 21, 2011
January
01
Jan
21
21
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
vjtorley @ 67: your judgement of what Steven Pinker's answers to your questions would be based on the article you cite seems quite strange and faulty to me. You conclude from him stating that "Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder." that that must be his own opinion, although he himself states his opinion as being "killing a baby is an immoral act". Well, if he thinks that ending a baby's life is wrong, he must obviously believe that babies DO have a right to life. And since, at least in this article, he associates a right to life with personhood, the most logical conclusion would be that he then also regards a newborn as a person. Consequently the most logical sequence of answers, based on the article you cite, for Pinker's own opinion would be: a) Yes b) Yes c) Yes d) Yes e) Nomolch
January 20, 2011
January
01
Jan
20
20
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
OK, so first off, I note the following.
("(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human?") Yes, unless you are talking about PZ Myers, then I would make an exception Joseph - (Whole series answered roughly that way) Pee Zee makes me wish birth control was retroactive kornbelt888
Way to demonstrate your strong moral assertion to the Right To Life (as long as they're not adult, and you agree with them). Now, since the Bible states that life starts at the first breath (God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" [Gen 2:7]; see also Ezekiel 37:1-10), why are you trying to shift the goalposts?Nameless Cynic
January 20, 2011
January
01
Jan
20
20
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Roxolan,
@Clive Hayden #46: I think I was very explicit in what I was trying to illustrate (or rather, to figure out about vjtorley), and you’re speaking complete nonsense.
You asked a question and your illustration can only be assumed, so what were you trying to illustrate?Clive Hayden
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
a) yes b) no c) no d) no e) nozontargs
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
---markf: "However, many on this forum believe that morality is essentially a search for some objective truth." Objective morality is, indeed, the truth about how humans ought to behave, though I don't know why you would characterize it as a search. Morality is not a process, though a person can progress as a moral agent. Progressing in moral virtue, however, requires a non-moving target at which to aim. ---"This little debate illustrates some of the problems with this." How, pray tell, does this illustrate problems with objective morality? ---"In some contexts, not only do we disagree on moral judgements, we disagree about counts as a reason for something being good or bad." The basic laws of objective morality are general and well defined, but they cannot substitute for the virtues of prudence and wisdom which must often be applied in the application. There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that tells us one way or the other that we need not go to extraordinary means to keep a dying person alive. On the other hand, the prudence and wisdom needed to arrive at that conclusion are always informed by the basic commandment against murder and the natural moral law. That, by the way, is also why it is always immoral to throw someone overboard from an occupied lifeboat, but it is not necessarily immoral to give the last place to a baby to a lifeboat not yet fully occupied. In the same way, wisdom and prudence tell us that insider trading in a free-market economy is wrong, even though that conclusion is informed by the general commandment against stealing. Take away the basic moral code, and there is no foundation on which to apply the wisdom and prudence. Materialist/Atheists have no foundation, so all their conclusions are based on arbitrary standards, such as the irrational notion that one must be a "fully developed human" in order to be "fully human." As I pointed out earlier, a twelve-year-old boy does not meet that standard. No one has yet answered that point for the simple reason that there is no answer. It makes no sense.StephenB
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Professor Steven Pinker's views On the basis of the quotes that follow, I believe that Steve Pinker's answer to the quiz would be: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. (I think Pinker would probably answer "No" for (d), because he denies that a newborn baby (or neonate) is "a person with a right not to be killed.") The following quotes are taken from the article, Why they kill their newborns by Steven Pinker (<The New York Times, Sunday, November 2, 1997). (For a thoroughgoing critique of Pinker's views, please see Steven Pinker’s Evolutionary "Explanation" of Infanticide by Robert L. Morrison.)
Killing your baby. what could be more depraved? For a woman to destroy the fruit of her womb would seem like an ultimate violation of the natural order. But every year, hundreds of women commit neonaticide: they kill their newborns or let them die... Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly 300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail... The leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers forces us to think the unthinkable and ask if we, like many societies and like the mothers themselves, are not completely sure whether a neonate is a full person. It seems obvious that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. Otherwise, we approach a slippery slope that ends in the disposal of inconvenient people or in grotesque deliberations on the value of individual lives. But the endless abortion debate shows how hard it is to locate the boundary. Anti-abortionists draw the line at conception, but that implies we should shed tears every time an invisible conceptus fails to implant in the uterus -- and, to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, that we should prosecute for murder anyone who uses an IUD. Those in favor of abortion draw the line at viability, but viability is a fuzzy gradient that depends on how great a risk of an impaired child the parents are willing to tolerate. The only thing both sides agree on is that the line must be drawn at some point before birth. Neonaticide forces us to examine even that boundary. To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other. Many mammals bear offspring that see and walk as soon as they hit the ground. But the incomplete 9-month-old human fetus must be evicted from the womb before its outsize head gets too big to fit through its mother's pelvis. The usual primate assembly process spills into the first years in the world. And that complicates our definition of personhood. What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life. No, the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do. Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Michael Tooley has gone so far as to say that neonaticide ought to be permitted during an interval after birth. Most philosophers (to say nothing of nonphilosophers) recoil from that last step, but the very fact that there can be a debate about the personhood of neonates, but no debate about the personhood of older children, makes it clearer why we feel more sympathy for an Amy Grossberg [an 18-year-old girl who delivered her baby in a motel room, killed him and left his body in a Dumpster - VJT] than for a Susan Smith [the South Carolina woman who drowned her two sons, 14 months and 3 years old - VJT]. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Pinker also asserts that "Killing a baby is an immoral act." Nevertheless, the foregoing quotes make it abundantly clear that he regards it as less immoral than killing an older infant, and hence less immoral than killing an adult.vjtorley
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Professor Peter Singer's views On the basis of the quotes that follow, I believe that Professor Peter Singer's answers to my quiz would be: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No, and I don’t believe adults do either. [Singer is a utilitarian.] (d) No. (e) No. I refer readers to Singer's chapter, Taking Life: Humans in Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217. A few excerpts:
In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings... No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time. The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents. It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability... Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy... When death occurs before birth, replaceability does not conflict with generally accepted moral convictions. That a fetus is known to be disabled is widely accepted as a ground for abortion. Yet in discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. Neither the fetus nor the newborn infant is an individual capable of regarding itself as a distinct entity with a life of its own to lead, and it is only for newborn infants, or for still earlier stages of human life, that replaceability should be considered to be an ethically acceptable option. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
vjtorley
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Roxolan:
I think I was very explicit in what I was trying to illustrate (or rather, to figure out about vjtorley), and you’re speaking complete nonsense.
Actually you didn't give any context, meaning you were speaking nonsense. You didn't even provide a realistic scenario.Joseph
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
F/N: The remarks above about the Titanic remind me of how many men on that ill-fated ship, including men of great wealth and power, being shaped by their sense of honour, held themselves back, so that women and children might have the first chance at the life boats. I believe a Vanderbilt was one of these; he perished in the cold seas and his body was recovered. I believe this, too was so for many of the musicians, who then played music to the last, even as but a few years later, on many a lethal morning, the "ladies from hell" -- so named by the German troops opposing, for their kilts (yes, kilts were worn in the trenches) and their bravery -- would be piped by brave pipers in their steady march across the machine-gun swept fields of Flanders.kairosfocus
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
In short, we see here (yet again) the amoral implications of that evolutionary materialism that has been established upon our civilisation in the name of science. MF's remark, further to this, is inadvertently quite revealing on the radically relativistic, amoral implications of such evolutionary materialist views, as long since highlighted by Plato in The Laws, Bk X: ________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> _________________ In short, the test case of the newborn infant and its rights to its life, points to many of the key problems of our modern world, and of the evolutionary materialism that so often dominates halls of influence and power. We would do well to heed the warning. At least, if we do not want to repeat -- yet again -- some awful chapters of history. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Re, MF: many on this forum believe that morality is essentially a search for some objective truth. This little debate illustrates some of the problems with this. In some contexts, not only do we disagree on moral judgements, we disagree about counts as a reason for something being good or bad. First, let us follow Josiah Royce and remind ourselves of warranted credible truth, no 1: E: error exists. While this is a rather uncontroversial empirical fact, it is more. This can be seen by trying to deny it, NOT-E. But, this implies a possible statement, E. Howbeit E and NOT-E cannot both be true, so one is in error. E is thus undeniably true. So, once we see E as warranted to certainty, as being true and trustworthy, it follows that Knowledge -- warranted, credible truth, also exists. It is objective, beyond our mere perception or wishes. The real issue, then is not whether people may be confused or puzzled or in disagreement on certain matters of objective truth, but whether they are in fact warranted and credible as truth. If that is so, your or my agreement or disagreement may be an interesting or even significant fact, but that has little or nothing to do with whether or not the matter is true and warranted as such. It is an observable fact that we find ourselves morally goverend, enconscienced creatures in our world. Even the most ardent subjectivist will agree that s/he finds that certain acts or words are an offence against his or her person and rights, e.g. slander, rape or murder. By reciprocity, the same would hold for other similarly situated creatures. More broadly, we are in consensus that we -- especially when we or those we care about are in contention -- have a right to fair treatment, but a right is precisely a binding moral obligation rooted in our dignity and status as persons, that we expect others to meet. Consequently, we ask: what grounds this? In short, we face the worldview challenge of the grounding IS that can adequately found OUGHT. On this, as Arthur Holmes observes, Ms Anscombe's remark still cuts to the heart of the matter:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments.
[ . . . ]kairosfocus
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
#57 Tim - I also believe that referring to one's own values is not a problem. However, many on this forum believe that morality is essentially a search for some objective truth. This little debate illustrates some of the problems with this. In some contexts, not only do we disagree on moral judgements, we disagree about counts as a reason for something being good or bad.markf
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
in roe vs Wade the supreme court said that until the fetus was fully out of the mother it was not a human being. So a crying baby in the room that was stuck for 30 seconds would not be a human being with rights thereof in the eyes of roe! Sinece right to life is inalienable then a crying baby is not a human being if stuck. So myers idea is not far from Roe. The need to decide when a human being has arrived on earth is a great present and future decision.Robert Byers
January 19, 2011
January
01
Jan
19
19
2011
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That was the easiest quiz I've taken in all my life. Do I get a sticker? markf @56, I hardly think that referring to "my own" values is a problem. I happen believe that my values as exemplified here in answeres 1-4 build a strong arugment for why the answer in 5 is "yes". I am unsure of what you mean by "conclusive proof", but here we go anyway. In general, based only on my affirmative answers to questions 1 and 2, it should be obvious that I make no distinctions between little babies (infants) and big babies (red sox fans); therefore the point of question 5 is muted based on my answers to 1-4. As for lifeboats and being forced to "decide," frankly, I wouldn't worry about it one way or the other. From degree to nth degree where I am made to take a life, I become less human. Look, I've got enough sin to let go of, temptation to resist, and evil to flee, as do we all, without tossing people out of, or gaffing and drawing them into, the nearest lifeboat at a moment's notice. I have enough trouble being kind to my colleague who just sent me yet another stupid email.Tim
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
What interests me about this exercise is the various answers to (e) and their justifications. They differ between atheists and theists but also among atheists and among theists. No one is able to present a conclusive proof that their view is the correct one. In the end they can only refer to their own values and feelings.markf
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
If that was not enough to falsify materialism Roxolan, Quantum teleportation blew it to smithereens by 'reducing/destroying' a atom to pure transcendent information: Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts So Roxolan, since you have no scientific justification to believe in 'reductive' materialism, what is your justification? Perhaps you want to put your chips on 'non-reductive materialism' as Stephen Hawking has??? Well that is also a futile path to take as well! Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ further note: Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking's New Book 'The Grand Design' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/ Even the 'exotic' virtual particles are found to be necessary for life in the universe: Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674bornagain77
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply